US v. Bobby Hazel


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion for leave to file [1000142272-2], granting Motion for leave to file [1000132183-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000124961-2]; denying Motion for abeyance (Local Rule 12(d)) [1000120860-2] Originating case number: 1:93-cr-00062-JCC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000166526]. Mailed to: Bobby Hazel; Fletcher Nathaniel Smith; Parker Tobin. [17-6840]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6840 Doc: 16 Filed: 10/03/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6840 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BOBBY HAZEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:93-cr-00062-JCC-1) Submitted: September 28, 2017 Decided: October 3, 2017 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Hazel, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Fletcher Nathaniel Smith, Parker Tobin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-6840 Doc: 16 Filed: 10/03/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Bobby Hazel seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hazel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Hazel’s motions to place the appeal in abeyance and for appointment of counsel, grant his motions to file supplemental briefs, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?